It's the kind of tripe you get from creationists who simply don't have a good understanding of how evolutionary biology works. Instead, they try to claim that variation only goes so far and no further (which just so happens to fit with what they want to believe), and so expound on that, while missing (or ignoring) the relevant points that would contradict their preexisting beliefs. Take the point the author tried to make about bacteria - that no matter how many generations of bacteria happen, they always remain bacteria.

Except scientists have already observed single-celled organisms making the transition into multicellular ones[1]. The difference between single celled and multicellular organisms is hard to overstate - a single celled organism has to be able to do everything itself, whereas multicellular ones can differentiate, having cells that specialize in some activity or another. Another important fact is that bacteria have the most potential to evolve, meaning that all existing life probably was initially single-celled bacteria, some of which happened to evolve in ways that led to the different forms of life which filled different niches.

It's the kind of tripe you get from creationists who simply don't have a good understanding of how evolutionary biology works. Instead, they try to claim that variation only goes so far and no further (which just so happens to fit with what they want to believe), and so expound on that, while missing (or ignoring) the relevant points that would contradict their preexisting beliefs. Take the point the author tried to make about bacteria - that no matter how many generations of bacteria happen, they always remain bacteria.

Except scientists have already observed single-celled organisms making the transition into multicellular ones[1]. The difference between single celled and multicellular organisms is hard to overstate - a single celled organism has to be able to do everything itself, whereas multicellular ones can differentiate, having cells that specialize in some activity or another. Another important fact is that bacteria have the most potential to evolve, meaning that all existing life probably was initially single-celled bacteria, some of which happened to evolve in ways that led to the different forms of life which filled different niches.

Even the Farro Island House Mouse is a witnessed speciation of a macroscopic mammal in 250 years.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

sorry about post #71. Not sure how that happened. anyway, dad's question. I think to say they fear God is wrong. To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear. Look at the "tree of life" I can buy a branch when the roots or even the trunk can be explained as possible.

try this link for an example. some of this a bit heady and there are a few remarks I could have done without but this was still a good read.

ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?

Most likely the termites ancestors could digest cellulose but not very efficiently. Then at some point the termite's ancestors started carrying around said bacteria in their guts to be more efficient. Because they no longer needed to manufacture the enzymes themselves, mutations that took away their own ability to manufacture them were no longer selected against. In fact, self producing said enzymes was now a drain on the termites resources and may have been selected against. At the same time the bacteria that breaks down the cellulose would have become more and more suited to living in the termites. They eventually got so good at living insode the termites that they stopped being able to live outside.

When you have trouble figuring out how an animal evolved, remember that the animals ancestors may have had organs and adaptations that their decedent does not.

Logged

The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

If i recall correctly, termites evolved from cockroaches.So i think it is likely that cockroaches inherited the bacteria, then evolved into termites.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

You're right about the termite thing, but I'm having trouble pinning down the origin of the bacteria.From Wikipedia:"Termites are a group of eusocial insects that, until recently, were classified at the taxonomic rank of order Isoptera (see taxonomy below), but are now accepted as the infraorder Isoptera, of the cockroach order Blattodea"

EDIT:However I think it's more appropriate to say that they share common ancestry.

I can only assume that the bacteria allowed cockroaches to digest cellulose easily?

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

I can only assume that the bacteria allowed cockroaches to digest cellulose easily?

I haven't found anything on cockroaches having bacteria, and since cockroaches tend to be scavengers of food scraps, I don't see why they would require it. However that does not exclude that possibility, but in light of the evidence I'm more comfortable with Red's postulation.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

instead of simply ignoring that your link apparently has been refuted by science and posing new questions, what you ought do is adjust your 'belief' to coincide with reality. What you are doing is trying to hang on to beliefs despite the facts. As usual, what we suggest here is go to a peer reviewed scientific source (yes, this rules out your creationist sources) and learn what the actual theory of evolution is.

Furthermore, when you decide to question evolution (which is fine) try to ask the same question of ID or creationism. What sense does it make to create a termite that cant digest its food source then to make a bacteria to assist in that action, instead of just making the termite able to digest the wood? Its one of the more dumb things I ever heard. When you start to question creationism the way that you attempt to question evolution, creationism is revealed as extremely silly. Evolution answers the questions perfectly.

Whats intelligent about putting a breathing pipe next to an eating pipe?

sorry about post #71. Not sure how that happened. anyway, dad's question. I think to say they fear God is wrong. To admit they have no answers is the true fear. To ever admit science is only creating more questions and problems on a molecular and cellular level where evolution is concerned is the real fear. Look at the "tree of life" I can buy a branch when the roots or even the trunk can be explained as possible.

try this link for an example. some of this a bit heady and there are a few remarks I could have done without but this was still a good read.

OK, I have read your article though, oddly, I ma not convinced by its arguments.

The theory of evolution (ToE) developed to explain the evidence found from live animals and from those found fossilised as well as the analysis of DNA and so on. You can read about all the evidence and read about what has been found here. Now the thing is that the theory has taken into account all the evidence we have. You will be aware that fossils re presdent a tiny fraction of the animals and plants that lived as, of course, the right geology is needed for the bodies to be preserved. now, naturally, if something is found that doesn't fit the pattern of the existing evidence then, of course, there will have to be changes in the theory but that hasn't happened in the over 100 years since Darwin.

Now, the article you posted is from someone who has a bias one way - believes in a creator god - and who would like to unseat the ToE by writing alone. I don't think either you or I would be surprised to find that this isn't going to happen. A Theory of Creation (ToC) would need to consider all the evidence we have and to encompass it whilst describing what we ought to be able to find that would show that ToC was the correct answer. No one, to date, has even attempted that since each writer of articles etc. seem to think that knocking at the edge of ToE is enough to kill it. It hasn't so far.

ToC would require an additional 'person' to be involved in it - a creator. All the talk in Intelligent Design about looking to see if something might have been created always fails the final test of showing that there is an existent being who did the creating.An old book, however much it is revered, is not evidence for anything but itself. We need evidence of a creator directly and to date nothing has appeared. So we have -

EITHER

a. the very simplest of 'life forms' maybe only molecules replicate and, as chance has it change and if successful in the environment where they are carry the change on into other generations. Gradually, over millions of years complex life forms appear and we are one of them

OR

b. God did it! Yep, he created everything and that's why we are are here now.

Now, enter Occam, razor in hand. He looks at these two possibilities... He notices that the only difference between the two is an additional person, the creator... He weilds his razor and lops... The creator as unnescessary is gone. The simpler solution remains.

Oh, Harbinger, a question for you to answer -

Why did your creator make so many large animal only to kill them later? You know the dinosaurs, the mamoths etc.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

instead of simply ignoring that your link apparently has been refuted by science and posing new questions, what you ought do is adjust your 'belief' to coincide with reality. What you are doing is trying to hang on to beliefs despite the facts. As usual, what we suggest here is go to a peer reviewed scientific source (yes, this rules out your creationist sources) and learn what the actual theory of evolution is.

Furthermore, when you decide to question evolution (which is fine) try to ask the same question of ID or creationism. What sense does it make to create a termite that cant digest its food source then to make a bacteria to assist in that action, instead of just making the termite able to digest the wood? Its one of the more dumb things I ever heard. When you start to question creationism the way that you attempt to question evolution, creationism is revealed as extremely silly. Evolution answers the questions perfectly.

Whats intelligent about putting a breathing pipe next to an eating pipe?

that one is simple. To show us it couldn't have evolved. Neither would have survived evolution while waiting for the other. I'll give you "at least not as we understand it at this point"

all the creation speaks of the Glory of God.. it says so in my old book. (yes that's a joke... almost)

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?

Most likely the termites ancestors could digest cellulose but not very efficiently. Then at some point the termite's ancestors started carrying around said bacteria in their guts to be more efficient. Because they no longer needed to manufacture the enzymes themselves, mutations that took away their own ability to manufacture them were no longer selected against. In fact, self producing said enzymes was now a drain on the termites resources and may have been selected against. At the same time the bacteria that breaks down the cellulose would have become more and more suited to living in the termites. They eventually got so good at living insode the termites that they stopped being able to live outside.

When you have trouble figuring out how an animal evolved, remember that the animals ancestors may have had organs and adaptations that their decedent does not.

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

My confidence that you understand anything about probability is rather low, but I've been wrong about people in the past. Perhaps you could start with your methodology for determining what the odds are for 'ANY DNA stand happening by chance' and we can go from there.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

ok one topic... This one is not from the paper I linked to though. The termite. A termite eats only wood. However it can't, on it's own, digest cellulose. If it can't digest it's food it dies. Inside the termite is another organism that makes an enzyme that breaks down the cellulose so the termite can digest it. This organism is also an anaerobe. If it were exposed to the oxygen outside the termite it would die. Neither one of these organisms can live without the other. my question is simple. Which evolved first?

Most likely the termites ancestors could digest cellulose but not very efficiently. Then at some point the termite's ancestors started carrying around said bacteria in their guts to be more efficient. Because they no longer needed to manufacture the enzymes themselves, mutations that took away their own ability to manufacture them were no longer selected against. In fact, self producing said enzymes was now a drain on the termites resources and may have been selected against. At the same time the bacteria that breaks down the cellulose would have become more and more suited to living in the termites. They eventually got so good at living insode the termites that they stopped being able to live outside.

When you have trouble figuring out how an animal evolved, remember that the animals ancestors may have had organs and adaptations that their decedent does not.

I like this one. or the cockroach ate it THEN became the termite... interesting enough.

You have still started with a branch. what about the root. look into the odds of ANY DNA stand happening by chance.

Don't change the goal posts on me. I addressed the portion of the article that you said was troubling you. That was all my previous post set out to do. Don't act like a brief explanation of symbiosis should stand as an argument for all of evolution. The gradual development of the first DNA molecules is a completely separate area of discussion.

Before moving over there, we should reach an accord about the plausibility of the evolution of seemingly difficult things like eyes, gut symbiotes and wings. One of these things has been demonstrated to be plausible by me here, and the others have be demonstrated elsewhere on this forum. Will you concede that evolution can be credited with the ability to produce these seemingly "irreducible" complexities, or do you need more information?

Logged

The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

instead of simply ignoring that your link apparently has been refuted by science and posing new questions, what you ought do is adjust your 'belief' to coincide with reality. What you are doing is trying to hang on to beliefs despite the facts. As usual, what we suggest here is go to a peer reviewed scientific source (yes, this rules out your creationist sources) and learn what the actual theory of evolution is.

Furthermore, when you decide to question evolution (which is fine) try to ask the same question of ID or creationism. What sense does it make to create a termite that cant digest its food source then to make a bacteria to assist in that action, instead of just making the termite able to digest the wood? Its one of the more dumb things I ever heard. When you start to question creationism the way that you attempt to question evolution, creationism is revealed as extremely silly. Evolution answers the questions perfectly.

Whats intelligent about putting a breathing pipe next to an eating pipe?

that one is simple. To show us it couldn't have evolved. Neither would have survived evolution while waiting for the other. I'll give you "at least not as we understand it at this point"

all the creation speaks of the Glory of God.. it says so in my old book. (yes that's a joke... almost)

There is something about change over time that you either refuse to understand or cant understand. I suggest doing actual research.

that one is simple. To show us it couldn't have evolved. Neither would have survived evolution while waiting for the other. I'll give you "at least not as we understand it at this point"

Since life almost certainly originated underwater, there would have been no need for a breathing pipe in the first place. Lungs and nostrils almost certainly developed from whatever it is that aquatic organisms use to scavenge oxygen from water. In short, there's no reason to accept your facile explanation as having any basis in fact.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

No, no, no! Breathing air is required by the holy god! Fish are not really alive-- they are just faking it. And amphibians are like bisexuals-- they need to effing make up their minds.

My god is perfect, got that? Any mistakes are in the eye of the beholder-- an eye that could not possibly have evolved, btw. Don't show me any light sensitive cells on plants that turn towards the sun, either. Plants are atheists and will burn in hell.

All non-evolved, intelligently-designed specially-created life has to breathe air, even if it means we choke and drown sometimes. Small price to pay to show how awesome my god is! Well, maybe not so small when a child chokes or drowns, but at least they go straight to heaven. If they are Christian children, that is. Where is my anti-Darwin punch pillow?

I'm not trying to make people mad here. just calling it like I see it. That being said I have a feeling you all won't like where I take this.

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy liesin the unstated major premise. If a state ofaffairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn'tfollow that it is false; it may only meanthat imagination is limited. Moreover, if noone has yet managed to imagine how a stateof affairs is possible, it doesn't follow thatno one will ever be able to.

Keep reading I changed it up a bit

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how God could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If God, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how God could be so. (or at least how to prove one way or the other)

Conclusion: Not- God

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy liesin the unstated major premise. If a person lacks FAITH in a state of affairs, it doesn'tfollow that it is false; it may only meanthat FAITH is limited. (or absent) Moreover, if noone has yet managed THE FAITH TO SEE how a stateof affairs is possible, it doesn't follow thatno one will ever be able to.

This is a perfect statement. It can go both ways and clearly demonstrates how it takes faith (here referred to as imagination) to be both an atheist as well as an evolutionist.

Your faith is in science. Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God. You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

No, no, no! Breathing air is required by the holy god! Fish are not really alive-- they are just faking it. And amphibians are like bisexuals-- they need to effing make up their minds.

My god is perfect, got that? Any mistakes are in the eye of the beholder-- an eye that could not possibly have evolved, btw. Don't show me any light sensitive cells on plants that turn towards the sun, either. Plants are atheists and will burn in hell.

All non-evolved, intelligently-designed specially-created life has to breathe air, even if it means we choke and drown sometimes. Small price to pay to show how awesome my god is! Well, maybe not so small when a child chokes or drowns, but at least they go straight to heaven. If they are Christian children, that is. Where is my anti-Darwin punch pillow?

WOW... and I'm the bigot? What may I ask is the point of this tantrum as it offered nothing to the conversation.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

I'm not trying to make people mad here. just calling it like I see it. That being said I have a feeling you all won't like where I take this.

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy liesin the unstated major premise. If a state ofaffairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn'tfollow that it is false; it may only meanthat imagination is limited. Moreover, if noone has yet managed to imagine how a stateof affairs is possible, it doesn't follow thatno one will ever be able to.

Keep reading I changed it up a bit

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how God could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If God, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how God could be so. (or at least how to prove one way or the other)

Conclusion: Not- God

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy liesin the unstated major premise. If a person lacks FAITH in a state of affairs, it doesn'tfollow that it is false; it may only meanthat FAITH is limited. (or absent) Moreover, if noone has yet managed THE FAITH TO SEE how a stateof affairs is possible, it doesn't follow thatno one will ever be able to.

This is a perfect statement. It can go both ways and clearly demonstrates how it takes faith (here referred to as imagination) to be both an atheist as well as an evolutionist.

Your faith is in science. Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God. You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.

No, no, no! Breathing air is required by the holy god! Fish are not really alive-- they are just faking it. And amphibians are like bisexuals-- they need to effing make up their minds.

My god is perfect, got that? Any mistakes are in the eye of the beholder-- an eye that could not possibly have evolved, btw. Don't show me any light sensitive cells on plants that turn towards the sun, either. Plants are atheists and will burn in hell.

All non-evolved, intelligently-designed specially-created life has to breathe air, even if it means we choke and drown sometimes. Small price to pay to show how awesome my god is! Well, maybe not so small when a child chokes or drowns, but at least they go straight to heaven. If they are Christian children, that is. Where is my anti-Darwin punch pillow?

WOW... and I'm the bigot? What may I ask is the point of this tantrum as it offered nothing to the conversation.

Not really a tantrum, just a sarcastic tirade to demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.

I'm not trying to make people mad here. just calling it like I see it. That being said I have a feeling you all won't like where I take this.

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy liesin the unstated major premise. If a state ofaffairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn'tfollow that it is false; it may only meanthat imagination is limited. Moreover, if noone has yet managed to imagine how a stateof affairs is possible, it doesn't follow thatno one will ever be able to.

Keep reading I changed it up a bit

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how God could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If God, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how God could be so. (or at least how to prove one way or the other)

Conclusion: Not- God

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy liesin the unstated major premise. If a person lacks FAITH in a state of affairs, it doesn'tfollow that it is false; it may only meanthat FAITH is limited. (or absent) Moreover, if noone has yet managed THE FAITH TO SEE how a stateof affairs is possible, it doesn't follow thatno one will ever be able to.

This is a perfect statement. It can go both ways and clearly demonstrates how it takes faith (here referred to as imagination) to be both an atheist as well as an evolutionist.

Your faith is in science. Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God. You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.

If you can't dazzle with brilliance then baffle with bullshit.

say what you will. It fits.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project